feat(mcp): add remote + stdio surfaces for loopover_get_pr_maintainer_packet

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Closes loopover_get_pr_maintainer_packet has a REST route but no remote MCP tool or local stdio MCP tool #7802: register loopover_get_pr_maintainer_packet on the remote MCP server and local stdio bin (mirror loopover_get_pr_reviewability input/auth; same REST data-assembly path), with forbidden + found coverage.
• In-process bin coverage via exported server + InMemoryTransport (same pattern as merged feat(mcp): add remote + stdio surfaces for loopover_get_registry_snapshot #7917 / feat(mcp): add remote + stdio surfaces for loopover_get_upstream_ruleset #7921 / feat(mcp): add remote + stdio surfaces for loopover_get_live_gate_thresholds #7924).

Test plan

• vitest mcp-pr-maintainer-packet + mcp-cli-pr-maintainer-packet + mcp-tool-rename-aliases
• CI validate / validate-tests green
• codecov/patch not 0% on bin-only lines

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.49%. Comparing base (510d25b) to head (4065baf).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7926      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.77%   82.49%   -9.29%     
==========================================
  Files         731       90     -641     
  Lines       74902    24420   -50482     
  Branches    22847     4696   -18151     
==========================================
- Hits        68741    20145   -48596     
+ Misses       5083     4039    -1044     
+ Partials     1078      236     -842     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	22.73% <18.18%> (-37.07%)	⬇️
shard-2	22.20% <100.00%> (-31.33%)	⬇️
shard-3	32.75% <63.63%> (-14.96%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts	13.83% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
src/mcp/server.ts	96.60% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

... and 641 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 18:40:28 UTC}

7 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 82/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
The AI review returned non-blocking notes for this change but did not include a separate narrative summary. Review the nits below before deciding this PR.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts:1519 — the handler destructures `{ owner, repo, number }: any`, matching prior tools' pattern but still worth typing against the shared shape instead of `any`.
• External brief flags a possible secret assignment at test/unit/mcp-cli-pr-maintainer-packet.test.ts:32 — it's `process.env.LOOPOVER_API_TOKEN = "in-process-token"`, a placeholder test fixture value, not a real credential, but worth confirming no real token is ever hardcoded elsewhere in the suite.
• The `packet as unknown as Record<string, unknown>` double-cast in src/mcp/server.ts's getPrMaintainerPacket mirrors existing casts elsewhere but is worth a shared helper if this pattern keeps repeating across new tools.
• Consider extracting the repeated `attachDataQuality(buildX(...) as unknown as Record<string, unknown>, await this.loadRepoDataQuality(fullName))` shape into a small helper if a fifth or sixth tool follows this same pattern, to cut duplication in src/mcp/server.ts.
• In packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.ts, replace `({ owner, repo, number }: any)` with the actual input-shape type used elsewhere in the file for stronger type safety on the stdio handler.
• Possible secret-shaped assignment in the diff (generic_secret_assignment) — Verify the value is not a real credential.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7802
Related work	⚠️ 1 scoped overlap	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 393 registered-repo PR(s), 176 merged, 36 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 393 PR(s), 36 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR registers loopover_get_pr_maintainer_packet as a remote MCP tool with category "review" and ownerRepoPullShape input using the same data-assembly path (getRepository, getPullRequest, listIssues, etc. → buildPullRequestMaintainerPacket → attachDataQuality), and also adds the stdio tool proxying GET .../maintainer-packet, with no new REST route or CLI verb, plus matching unit tests.

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Svelte, TypeScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 393 PR(s), 36 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (PR #7925)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps in the Signals table above.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.